Hi dev. Why only Bitcoin holders, would it be better if you include in the distribution also those holders of other coins. This would effect in much wider distribution. My suggestion would be to include the top 100 or 200 coins by marketcap, with equal weight by coin supply. This would be much fairer.

That would not be fair because theses shitcoins in top 100 / 200 are easy to manipulate and for some the devs own very large supplies or the distribution of theses coins are or where shady. And it would be a lot of work for nothing.

Well it will be much fairer because those who will have little BTC will just buy maybe the low marketcap coin if distribution is by equal weight by coin supply. In addition it will attract community in other coins.

I agree with Seccour: this is over-complicating things by a lot. BTC is simpler and a coin most people have. If people want to take part in distribution, they can easily convert their altcoins to BTC.

Ha yeah the BTC whales will love that. Let's crash alt markets further first. Before switching to BTC in which they are already whales. Before giving them the whale share of new alts. So they can pump and dump them to death and make more BTC. This is a great.

Let's not over complicate things. Sell all your alts and send the BTC to the BTC whales. Seems simple.

This is the test run. It is if a lot of others start distributing like this you will have a problem.

No one force you to sell your alts to get BTC for the distribution what the fuck ? Can you please stop your FUD ?

If you do sell your altcoins for BTC then it's like investing in an ICO. You do it because you think you will get more money with Byteball than the alt you currently hold. So let people do their own choices. BTC whales don't care, proof : Only 11k BTC has been linked so far. Come back when real whales will be here ( at least 10x the current amount pls )

Presenting facts does not equal FUD.

I want to see a list of reason why to go this route compared to fair launch POW. I would even like to see a list of reasons to go this route over ICO.

POW is the clear winner here in everything except giving a BTC development pot at the start. However this method does not even offer that only and ICO does.

If you can provide no such list then I can not be expected to take you or anyone seriously when they say they believe it to be the best way to go. It simply does not make sense to agree with a distributional method you can not show to be anything other than inferior.

This initial project makes little difference. However if others all start distributing in this way it will be good for current BTC whales and exchange owners only.

FUD? please keep these meaningless comments out of the debate. I would like to see some reasoning behind your obvious approval of this. Surely you employ reason to form opinions and make decisions in life? do you not? Let me hear the reasons for your support of this over POW. Detailed reasons so that I can get some understanding of why you wish to see this method employed.

Why no fair PoW launch ? Because first there is no PoW, and second there is no fair launch in PoW.

There are no blocks in Byteball, and no block size issue. Instead, every new transaction references one or more earlier ones (parents) by including and signing their hashes. The links among transactions form a DAG (directed acyclic graph):

By including its parents, each new transaction also indirectly includes and confirms all parents of the parents, parents of the parents of the parents, and so on. As more transactions are added after your transaction, the number of confirmations you receive grows like snowball, that’s why the name Byteball (our snowflakes are bytes of data).

Consensus

There is no PoW, no PoS, and no mining. Instead, we have the DAG, which already establishes partial order between transactions, plus we add the main chain within the DAG:

Why would lowering the micropayment be riskier than with the current micropayments? (because they would be easily spotted?)

Because the attack would become cheaper, hence worthwhile.

mmmm, in my opinion the attack is already worthwhile, anyway such an attack won't succeed unless the attackee is not vigilant and doesn't double check their address (as the bot instructs them), so why not lower it if it permits to filter out exchanges addresses at the detection process (not requiring you to check suspect addresses)?

People do make mistakes, and having to be overly vigilant scares them off. I'd rather have a more comfortable environment for the entire process.The attacker's ROI depends on 3 factors:- % of people who do not check that the address is theirs after receiving a second notification "Received your payment from ..." (the attacker's microtransaction is almost certainly later than the legitimate one)- average balance of such users- cost of attacking, which is the average amount of the microtransactionBy lowering the cost, we turn the ROI at some point from negative to positive.

I see your point. If you are comfortable with filtering out exchanges addresses after adding them and then investigating them, then there is no need to lower the micropayment. Yet, I still think lowering it would easily filter any exchange address out as the transaction won't be possible to begin with. (and if I were an attacker, paying (n times) 0.000x instead of 0.0000x wouldn't hurt my ROI that much ).

Filtering of microtransactions sent from exchange wallets already works in fully automated mode, so no need to apply any other measures.

I never make anything personal. I am here to discuss only the observable events that take place. I stand by what I said though that this is the worst distributional method for alts and this project (for many reasons already stated above) that I have seen yet.

The added fact there is refusal to null the top 2-5%of wallets which would hardly affect how broad the distribution is yet prevent all the exchange issues, ICO's using their windfalls against the project and super whales pumping and dumping everyone over and over is strange although I see no gain for tonych from refusing.

Come on Tonych keep 10% for dev and wages and just make it a POW launch. BB will be a pariah coin with the alt coin community I can guarantee it once word is out beyond this thread. Auto creating Whales in new ALT currencies on the basis of them being whales in BTC already with no risk to them at all is simply not going to go over well. That and handing exchanges and ICO teams super whale portions is even more undesirable.

You seem so smart there must be another angle to this that you are not revealing. There is no way you would be funding your competition and making sure investors don't ever touch this coin for fear of huge whale manipulation. Fess up there is some other reason for this and I don't mean your personal self enrichment. What is it?

Right now 7 accounts control 60.3% of the distribution... a disaster.

A whale skewed distribution is only good for whale pumping/dumping and never corrects itself over time...It's not about "fairness", this distribution never builds a wide, stable community... so what is Tony really trying to achieve.

I would suggest using LOG or LN on balances to create a much wider distribution...

For example,

ln(1000) = 6.9ln(100) = 4.6ln(10) = 2.3

So someone with 1000 BTC only gets about 3 times what 10 BTC gets you...You wanna be radical and start with a large diverse community... LN is your friend.

Split your BTC and different address and that's it.

ln(20) < ln(10) + ln(10)

OK, then same applies to having a cap of 100 BTC or whatever...Then say the distribution will be democratized using a proprietary alogrithm...I'm sure people have done serious work on this...As it stands, this project has gone from being a refreshing longshot to a mainstream P&D by the usual suspects.

I never make anything personal. I am here to discuss only the observable events that take place. I stand by what I said though that this is the worst distributional method for alts and this project (for many reasons already stated above) that I have seen yet.

The added fact there is refusal to null the top 2-5%of wallets which would hardly affect how broad the distribution is yet prevent all the exchange issues, ICO's using their windfalls against the project and super whales pumping and dumping everyone over and over is strange although I see no gain for tonych from refusing.

Come on Tonych keep 10% for dev and wages and just make it a POW launch. BB will be a pariah coin with the alt coin community I can guarantee it once word is out beyond this thread. Auto creating Whales in new ALT currencies on the basis of them being whales in BTC already with no risk to them at all is simply not going to go over well. That and handing exchanges and ICO teams super whale portions is even more undesirable.

You seem so smart there must be another angle to this that you are not revealing. There is no way you would be funding your competition and making sure investors don't ever touch this coin for fear of huge whale manipulation. Fess up there is some other reason for this and I don't mean your personal self enrichment. What is it?

Right now 7 accounts control 60.3% of the distribution... a disaster.

A whale skewed distribution is only good for whale pumping/dumping and never corrects itself over time...It's not about "fairness", this distribution never builds a wide, stable community... so what is Tony really trying to achieve.

I would suggest using LOG or LN on balances to create a much wider distribution...

For example,

ln(1000) = 6.9ln(100) = 4.6ln(10) = 2.3

So someone with 1000 BTC only gets about 3 times what 10 BTC gets you...You wanna be radical and start with a large diverse community... LN is your friend.

Split your BTC and different address and that's it.

ln(20) < ln(10) + ln(10)

OK, then same applies to having a cap of 100 BTC or whatever...Then say the distribution will be democratized using a proprietary alogrithm...I'm sure people have done serious work on this...As it stands, this project has gone from being a refreshing longshot to a mainstream P&D by the usual suspects.

Let's wait and see. There is 12-13 days left before the snapshot. That let plenty of time for people to link there addresses. We will see how the distribution evolve.

Hi dev. Why only Bitcoin holders, would it be better if you include in the distribution also those holders of other coins. This would effect in much wider distribution. My suggestion would be to include the top 100 or 200 coins by marketcap, with equal weight by coin supply. This would be much fairer.

That would not be fair because theses shitcoins in top 100 / 200 are easy to manipulate and for some the devs own very large supplies or the distribution of theses coins are or where shady. And it would be a lot of work for nothing.

This will create too much unnecessary work for the dev, who better use the time for developing new and unique features. You can always dump your altcoins to get bitcoin if you really want the byteballs badly, lol

I never make anything personal. I am here to discuss only the observable events that take place. I stand by what I said though that this is the worst distributional method for alts and this project (for many reasons already stated above) that I have seen yet.

The added fact there is refusal to null the top 2-5%of wallets which would hardly affect how broad the distribution is yet prevent all the exchange issues, ICO's using their windfalls against the project and super whales pumping and dumping everyone over and over is strange although I see no gain for tonych from refusing.

Come on Tonych keep 10% for dev and wages and just make it a POW launch. BB will be a pariah coin with the alt coin community I can guarantee it once word is out beyond this thread. Auto creating Whales in new ALT currencies on the basis of them being whales in BTC already with no risk to them at all is simply not going to go over well. That and handing exchanges and ICO teams super whale portions is even more undesirable.

You seem so smart there must be another angle to this that you are not revealing. There is no way you would be funding your competition and making sure investors don't ever touch this coin for fear of huge whale manipulation. Fess up there is some other reason for this and I don't mean your personal self enrichment. What is it?

Right now 7 accounts control 60.3% of the distribution... a disaster.

A whale skewed distribution is only good for whale pumping/dumping and never corrects itself over time...It's not about "fairness", this distribution never builds a wide, stable community... so what is Tony really trying to achieve.

I would suggest using LOG or LN on balances to create a much wider distribution...

For example,

ln(1000) = 6.9ln(100) = 4.6ln(10) = 2.3

So someone with 1000 BTC only gets about 3 times what 10 BTC gets you...You wanna be radical and start with a large diverse community... LN is your friend.

If dev does this, then the BTC whale will split his 1000 BTC into 100 accounts with 10 BTC each and will get the same thing. There's no way for the dev to play police to tracking where the BTCs come from. Why a fair distribution like this causes so much outcry? If I have more money and I put in bank, isn't I get more interests than people who has less money? lol stop be greedy and crying for unfair, and just live with it!

I insist. The whole thing is meant to replace a crowdfund. tonych NOT taking your BTC was/is supposed to be a good thing (for Christ's sake). The overall required valuation of the project to make the dev happy with this decision is peanuts and easily achievable. Thus, highly likely to be deemed a success. No one said that Byteball will be launching on the Moon. Whether Cryptoland will take it there (or not) remains to be seen. Whales can't do shit to prevent such outcome long-term (if anything, they usually provide the last push), although space shuttle solid rocket boosters are no joke.

I think you underestimate the whales power and determination not to mention greed. I've seen them wait years to make moves happen while outwaiting everyone except the very few who held through it all. You cant base your investment on what you hope whales will do anyway because doing that will lead to only one place. Your pocket. And that's where it hurts the most.

People complaining about the 'bad distribution' are drawing hasty conclusions:

First point is that the distribution hasn't happened yet, the numbers are still changing. There is plenty of time left until xmas day.

Second point (and most important IMO) is that Tony was clever and planned the distribution in 5 rounds, which allows the coins to be traded in between. I see a large potential for even more awareness due to that, followed by a much better distribution.

@cryptohunter: no need to ride the POW argument to death, we already heard your arguments before and answered these several times. As your rants are quite lengthy and your facts repetitious, I will now put you on my ignore list to be able to follow this thread and don't miss any 'meaningful' posts!

REMEMBER the Main-net Premined coins are & will be in the hands of the Dev that has a disposable Bitcointalk account....... and all of you are having a sook about the distribution hahahahahaha, we all know what happens with Premined coins.... even Vitalik Buterin sold his

Hi dev. Why only Bitcoin holders, would it be better if you include in the distribution also those holders of other coins. This would effect in much wider distribution. My suggestion would be to include the top 100 or 200 coins by marketcap, with equal weight by coin supply. This would be much fairer.

That would not be fair because theses shitcoins in top 100 / 200 are easy to manipulate and for some the devs own very large supplies or the distribution of theses coins are or where shady. And it would be a lot of work for nothing.

Well it will be much fairer because those who will have little BTC will just buy maybe the low marketcap coin if distribution is by equal weight by coin supply. In addition it will attract community in other coins.

I agree with Seccour: this is over-complicating things by a lot. BTC is simpler and a coin most people have. If people want to take part in distribution, they can easily convert their altcoins to BTC.

Ha yeah the BTC whales will love that. Let's crash alt markets further first. Before switching to BTC in which they are already whales. Before giving them the whale share of new alts. So they can pump and dump them to death and make more BTC. This is a great.

Let's not over complicate things. Sell all your alts and send the BTC to the BTC whales. Seems simple.

This is the test run. It is if a lot of others start distributing like this you will have a problem.

No one force you to sell your alts to get BTC for the distribution what the fuck ? Can you please stop your FUD ?

If you do sell your altcoins for BTC then it's like investing in an ICO. You do it because you think you will get more money with Byteball than the alt you currently hold. So let people do their own choices. BTC whales don't care, proof : Only 11k BTC has been linked so far. Come back when real whales will be here ( at least 10x the current amount pls )

Presenting facts does not equal FUD.

I want to see a list of reason why to go this route compared to fair launch POW. I would even like to see a list of reasons to go this route over ICO.

POW is the clear winner here in everything except giving a BTC development pot at the start. However this method does not even offer that only and ICO does.

If you can provide no such list then I can not be expected to take you or anyone seriously when they say they believe it to be the best way to go. It simply does not make sense to agree with a distributional method you can not show to be anything other than inferior.

This initial project makes little difference. However if others all start distributing in this way it will be good for current BTC whales and exchange owners only.

FUD? please keep these meaningless comments out of the debate. I would like to see some reasoning behind your obvious approval of this. Surely you employ reason to form opinions and make decisions in life? do you not? Let me hear the reasons for your support of this over POW. Detailed reasons so that I can get some understanding of why you wish to see this method employed.

Why no fair PoW launch ? Because first there is no PoW, and second there is no fair launch in PoW.

There are no blocks in Byteball, and no block size issue. Instead, every new transaction references one or more earlier ones (parents) by including and signing their hashes. The links among transactions form a DAG (directed acyclic graph):

By including its parents, each new transaction also indirectly includes and confirms all parents of the parents, parents of the parents of the parents, and so on. As more transactions are added after your transaction, the number of confirmations you receive grows like snowball, that’s why the name Byteball (our snowflakes are bytes of data).

Consensus

There is no PoW, no PoS, and no mining. Instead, we have the DAG, which already establishes partial order between transactions, plus we add the main chain within the DAG:

I see now the problem is that you are not reading my posts.

1. the pow token would be swapped for BB2. Because POW is no 100% fair we will go with the most unfair design we can dream up. Giving the already rich the most is worse than giving everyone nothing. I simply magnifies the already huge disparity in crypto wealth.

I see now that there is no answer to my points coming on this thread simply because there are no possible ways to refute the negative implications I have illustrated for distributing like this.

I never make anything personal. I am here to discuss only the observable events that take place. I stand by what I said though that this is the worst distributional method for alts and this project (for many reasons already stated above) that I have seen yet.

The added fact there is refusal to null the top 2-5%of wallets which would hardly affect how broad the distribution is yet prevent all the exchange issues, ICO's using their windfalls against the project and super whales pumping and dumping everyone over and over is strange although I see no gain for tonych from refusing.

Come on Tonych keep 10% for dev and wages and just make it a POW launch. BB will be a pariah coin with the alt coin community I can guarantee it once word is out beyond this thread. Auto creating Whales in new ALT currencies on the basis of them being whales in BTC already with no risk to them at all is simply not going to go over well. That and handing exchanges and ICO teams super whale portions is even more undesirable.

You seem so smart there must be another angle to this that you are not revealing. There is no way you would be funding your competition and making sure investors don't ever touch this coin for fear of huge whale manipulation. Fess up there is some other reason for this and I don't mean your personal self enrichment. What is it?

Right now 7 accounts control 60.3% of the distribution... a disaster.

A whale skewed distribution is only good for whale pumping/dumping and never corrects itself over time...It's not about "fairness", this distribution never builds a wide, stable community... so what is Tony really trying to achieve.

I would suggest using LOG or LN on balances to create a much wider distribution...

For example,

ln(1000) = 6.9ln(100) = 4.6ln(10) = 2.3

So someone with 1000 BTC only gets about 3 times what 10 BTC gets you...You wanna be radical and start with a large diverse community... LN is your friend.

If dev does this, then the BTC whale will split his 1000 BTC into 100 accounts with 10 BTC each and will get the same thing. There's no way for the dev to play police to tracking where the BTCs come from. Why a fair distribution like this causes so much outcry? If I have more money and I put in bank, isn't I get more interests than people who has less money? lol stop be greedy and crying for unfair, and just live with it!

We know this is easily overcome by a random date snapshot or a snapshot of the chain in the past.How about the more BTC you have the less BB you get. That could be interesting if not to hard to implement. Null the top 2%. POW token exchangeable to BB. The options are endless that null the majority of the major problems this coin is creating for itself.

I never make anything personal. I am here to discuss only the observable events that take place. I stand by what I said though that this is the worst distributional method for alts and this project (for many reasons already stated above) that I have seen yet.

The added fact there is refusal to null the top 2-5%of wallets which would hardly affect how broad the distribution is yet prevent all the exchange issues, ICO's using their windfalls against the project and super whales pumping and dumping everyone over and over is strange although I see no gain for tonych from refusing.

Come on Tonych keep 10% for dev and wages and just make it a POW launch. BB will be a pariah coin with the alt coin community I can guarantee it once word is out beyond this thread. Auto creating Whales in new ALT currencies on the basis of them being whales in BTC already with no risk to them at all is simply not going to go over well. That and handing exchanges and ICO teams super whale portions is even more undesirable.

You seem so smart there must be another angle to this that you are not revealing. There is no way you would be funding your competition and making sure investors don't ever touch this coin for fear of huge whale manipulation. Fess up there is some other reason for this and I don't mean your personal self enrichment. What is it?

Right now 7 accounts control 60.3% of the distribution... a disaster.

A whale skewed distribution is only good for whale pumping/dumping and never corrects itself over time...It's not about "fairness", this distribution never builds a wide, stable community... so what is Tony really trying to achieve.

I would suggest using LOG or LN on balances to create a much wider distribution...

For example,

ln(1000) = 6.9ln(100) = 4.6ln(10) = 2.3

So someone with 1000 BTC only gets about 3 times what 10 BTC gets you...You wanna be radical and start with a large diverse community... LN is your friend.

If dev does this, then the BTC whale will split his 1000 BTC into 100 accounts with 10 BTC each and will get the same thing. There's no way for the dev to play police to tracking where the BTCs come from. Why a fair distribution like this causes so much outcry? If I have more money and I put in bank, isn't I get more interests than people who has less money? lol stop be greedy and crying for unfair, and just live with it!

We know this is easily overcome by a random date snapshot or a snapshot of the chain in the past.How about the more BTC you have the less BB you get. That could be interesting if not to hard to implement. Null the top 2%. POW token exchangeable to BB. The options are endless that null the majority of the major problems this coin is creating for itself.

Taking random date or snapshot in the past is simply ridiculous. It is impossible to adapt a absolute equal path which will be easily frauded. There's no reason to cut top 2% (how did you calculate 2%, why not 1%, why not 5%), people with more resources have the power to gain advantage, just accept it and get over it and relax. Your proposal is like for the bank if you deposit more than 1 mil then no interest will be paid. In the real world this is the opposite, if you deposit more in the bank, bank will give you a preferred rate better than other people.

I never make anything personal. I am here to discuss only the observable events that take place. I stand by what I said though that this is the worst distributional method for alts and this project (for many reasons already stated above) that I have seen yet.

The added fact there is refusal to null the top 2-5%of wallets which would hardly affect how broad the distribution is yet prevent all the exchange issues, ICO's using their windfalls against the project and super whales pumping and dumping everyone over and over is strange although I see no gain for tonych from refusing.

Come on Tonych keep 10% for dev and wages and just make it a POW launch. BB will be a pariah coin with the alt coin community I can guarantee it once word is out beyond this thread. Auto creating Whales in new ALT currencies on the basis of them being whales in BTC already with no risk to them at all is simply not going to go over well. That and handing exchanges and ICO teams super whale portions is even more undesirable.

You seem so smart there must be another angle to this that you are not revealing. There is no way you would be funding your competition and making sure investors don't ever touch this coin for fear of huge whale manipulation. Fess up there is some other reason for this and I don't mean your personal self enrichment. What is it?

Right now 7 accounts control 60.3% of the distribution... a disaster.

A whale skewed distribution is only good for whale pumping/dumping and never corrects itself over time...It's not about "fairness", this distribution never builds a wide, stable community... so what is Tony really trying to achieve.

I would suggest using LOG or LN on balances to create a much wider distribution...

For example,

ln(1000) = 6.9ln(100) = 4.6ln(10) = 2.3

So someone with 1000 BTC only gets about 3 times what 10 BTC gets you...You wanna be radical and start with a large diverse community... LN is your friend.

If dev does this, then the BTC whale will split his 1000 BTC into 100 accounts with 10 BTC each and will get the same thing. There's no way for the dev to play police to tracking where the BTCs come from. Why a fair distribution like this causes so much outcry? If I have more money and I put in bank, isn't I get more interests than people who has less money? lol stop be greedy and crying for unfair, and just live with it!

We know this is easily overcome by a random date snapshot or a snapshot of the chain in the past.How about the more BTC you have the less BB you get. That could be interesting if not to hard to implement. Null the top 2%. POW token exchangeable to BB. The options are endless that null the majority of the major problems this coin is creating for itself.

Taking random date or snapshot in the past is simply ridiculous. It is impossible to adapt a absolute equal path which will be easily frauded. There's no reason to cut top 2% (how did you calculate 2%, why not 1%, why not 5%), people with more resources have the power to gain advantage, just accept it and get over it and relax. Your proposal is like for the bank if you deposit more than 1 mil then no interest will be paid. In the real world this is the opposite, if you deposit more in the bank, bank will give you a preferred rate better than other people.

Nothing ridiculous about it. Other than you are saying it is ridiculous.

Top 2% should exclude exchange wallets and other ICO's plus knock out some whales. However I agree top 5% of BTC wallets may as well be nulled why do they require further enrichment and instant entitlement in all new alts?

Your comparison is very valid to the banks. Crypto is certainly not attempting to emulate banking mentality where the rich get richer and the poor get poorer. FYI a some banks do give very high interest to small accounts with caps on them to encourage the poor to save and these accounts do have a cap to how much you can put in them.

Thanks for adding strength to my valid points.

I still have heard nothing at all to refute the POW token swap idea.

Please refer back to my very valid points here regarding POW phase aAnyone can hire hash power and this would be a very short mining period. The only variable is really cost of electricity.

Miners will be taking a risk for the BBMiners will be investing in it for realMiners will stop BTC whales becoming BB whales with no risk to their BTCMiner will stop other ICO owners using BB to crush the BB price to fund their own projectMIners will stop exchange owners being whales to manipulate the markets pumping and dumping on innocent investors.Miners will stop ALT coin dilution in general. We can then agree tony keeps a higher % to fund BB this higher percentage will be magnified many times over because competitive ICO projects will not be funded by BB most people now receiving BB will have no incentive to see it crash and burn.

Please weight these points carefully and analyse them. If there is issues here with my simple common sense logic I will gladly explore them with you.

So far all I have heard in reply is

1. mining is not 100% fair (which it is not but it is pretty fair, the only real variables are skill level which is easily overcome by renting rigs that will already be set up to hash this coin for you, or electricity cost which over a short mining period is not that big of a deal) we would prefer to design the most common sense unfair method possible. We will give the richest the most and give the poorest the least. Whilst funding our competition and creating incentive to crush this coin and for investors never to look at it seriously for fear of gross unstoppable manipulation by whales and exchanges.

2. We will not cut out the top 2% and use random/previous snapshot dates to prevent wallet spreading so that we can avoid ICO competition super wallets, exchange wallets and super super rich BTC whales .....why won;t we do this? because it is simply ridiculous. We won't say why it is ridiculous it just is because we say so.

Sorry that is plain for any sensible person to see these are not valid reasons at all. There is something strange here. Please state some valid logical reasons why to go this method and point out to me out my seemingly valid points above are not valid so that I and any other logical minded person of sound reason may understand this choice.

The alternatives are the inverse of what miners will prevent.

Mining farms will have no advantage at all over anyone else except in the form perhaps of electricity savings and a small factor of buying their hardware over leasing. That was anyones choice to start with. They are not taking the whales share with no investment or risk.

If you are going to do an airdrop this is not the way. This is the worst way to conduct an air drop possible for this coin and all alts.nd token swap for advantages to this project and alts in general

I am generally with you on fairness issue. One measure of civilization is how fair and reasonable it is.But your sentiment here is propelled by the same greed that drives all of us including whales.If you recognize that, you will cease hiding behind elaborate "reasoning" supposedly for universal fairness.

Better world is possible but a knot to untie that world is way bellow sky planes of currency.

- Press Next, and select your Account Number. If you are not sure, leave the field with 0, otherwise enter the index of the account you want to import.

- Click on Next, and Electrum will sync your account. Depending on your connection and the server, it may take from a few minutes to half an hour.- Once the sync process is finished, you can use Electrum normally.

- Enter the amount you want to transfer (you can send the maximum possible amount by pressing the "Max" button)- Select the Fee amount- Click on "Send"- Validate the transaction on your device (Nano S)

Step 4: Install and launch Byteball wallet

- Download Byteball wallet from byteball.org (make sure it is the LIVENET version)- Install Byteball wallet- Open Byteball wallet- Click on the link provided by byteball.org to launch the Transition Bot

- Click on "Insert my address" then on "Send"- Enter your bitcoin address (the one from Step 2) and click on "Send"

I am generally with you on fairness issue. One measure of civilization is how fair and reasonable it is.But your sentiment here is propelled by the same greed that drives all of us including whales.If you recognize that, you will cease hiding behind elaborate "reasoning" supposedly for universal fairness.

Better world is possible but a knot to untie that world is way bellow sky planes of currency.

Interesting but incorrect in this particular case.

I have worked out that I would probably capture less BB if it went fair launch POW than I would by linking my BTC addresses.

I also do not find my reasoning to be elaborate in this instance. It is there is black and white for anyone to examine.

Sometimes common sense is enough. In this case rewarding the wealthiest with the most and giving the poorest the least is enough. It is just the start in this case there are many levels upon which this fails compared to POW and even ICO.

I am generally with you on fairness issue. One measure of civilization is how fair and reasonable it is.But your sentiment here is propelled by the same greed that drives all of us including whales.If you recognize that, you will cease hiding behind elaborate "reasoning" supposedly for universal fairness.

Better world is possible but a knot to untie that world is way bellow sky planes of currency.

Interesting but incorrect in this particular case.

I have worked out that I would probably capture less BB if it went fair launch POW than I would by linking my BTC addresses.

I also do not find my reasoning to be elaborate in this instance. It is there is black and white for anyone to examine.

Sometimes common sense is enough. In this case rewarding the wealthiest with the most and giving the poorest the least is enough. It is just the start in this case there are many levels upon which this fails compared to POW and even ICO.

Also keep in mind that proposed per phase distribution allows for some quite generous and incentivizing dynamic. I am not sure if its intention or a mistake but think of this:In first phase you linked 5 BTC. On 25th of december you will get something between 10 and 35 Gb. For second phase, your total share will be equal to 165-565 BTC (10Gb/62.5Mb+5BTC - 35Gb/62.5Mb+5BTC). Against those who entered phase one with you, proportion remains the same. But those entering in phase 2 will have to own >165-565 BTC to receive more than you in that phase. Not to mention phase 3 etc.

Going from 5 to 165-565 BTC weight is some serious incentivization for early adopters.

This all stands if explanation from page 1 is complete, final and correct.